Interests:Farthings, farthings and more farthings!!! Oh and British Colonial coins

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:29 PM

Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible O

Looks like it to me, nice catch Azda

Looks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be.

I agree it certainly looks like a die flaw/crack has extended between the curves of the C to form an "O" shape. This is based on the assumption that the style of the O is different.

However having said that it could be argued to be an "O" if you can prove the C on a same denomination without the overstrike is also a different shape which it appears to be on the comparison. Are the photos of two coins that are the same denomination? or are they different denominations from the same maundy set?

Interests:Errrr Coins, Charles I and civil war period coinage (when i can afford it)
Hopefully some decent Scottish Silver eventually as well

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:36 PM

Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible O

Looks like it to me, nice catch Azda

Looks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be.

I agree it certainly looks like a die flaw/crack has extended between the curves of the C to form an "O" shape. This is based on the assumption that the style of the O is different.

However having said that it could be argued to be an "O" if you can prove the C on a same denomination without the overstrike is also a different shape which it appears to be on the comparison. Are the photos of two coins that are the same denomination? or are they different denominations from the same maundy set?

The possible error is a 3d 1680 the other a 2d 1678. I've scoped the possible error. Sideways O? IE, the fatter sides of a normal O being top and bottom other than left and right (if you get what i mean lol)

Interests:Farthings, farthings and more farthings!!! Oh and British Colonial coins

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:51 PM

On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?

This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?

It wouldn't add metal, it would be incuse on the die. Therefore a die crack that is incuse would result in a raised link between the curves of the C. I agree it could well be a sideways O but you would need to look at the letter styles on a coin of the same denomination to be more certain.

I have seen die cracks in all shapes and sizes and that have made all manner of things look like they have appeared, but you need to be certain.

Interests:Errrr Coins, Charles I and civil war period coinage (when i can afford it)
Hopefully some decent Scottish Silver eventually as well

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:31 PM

On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?

This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?

It wouldn't add metal, it would be incuse on the die. Therefore a die crack that is incuse would result in a raised link between the curves of the C. I agree it could well be a sideways O but you would need to look at the letter styles on a coin of the same denomination to be more certain.

I have seen die cracks in all shapes and sizes and that have made all manner of things look like they have appeared, but you need to be certain.

To me it looks like C on O (or perhaps an inverted C). If the error were discovered after the first strike it would probably explain why the line is thin.
Here a similar example of a danish error coin - K over misplaced N in Skilling:1.jpg134KB2 downloads